On 20 April 2014 03:49, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I don't believe that will happen, the line *will* be drawn somewhere,
> before Python 3 dies a death of a thousand cuts. I think that the right
> place to draw the line is *here*, not the next time, or the time after
> that. I think that the decision should be made on technical reasons, not
> so people feel that they are being listened to.

I agree. I think that it's right that we should listen to users'
frustrations with the (deliberately) backward incompatible changes.
But listening does not imply not questioning. It's perfectly fair and
reasonable to say "We understand that you feel there is an overhead
here - we tried very hard to design Python 3 with future benefits in
mind, and we assessed the costs as best we could given the data we had
available. Could you please provide some quantitative data on how the
loss of iterXXX affects you, with specific code details, so that we
can review what you believe you have to do and consider whether you
have missed an approach we were expecting projects to take, or whether
your figures imply that we seriously underestimated the cost. We can
then consider how best to address the implications of the information
you provide."

Ultimately, every time we add *any* sort of compatibility feature to
Python 3 (Unicode literals, bytes interpolation, this) we are sending
the message that we made a mistake in the design of Python 3. It's
certainly possible that's the case (we didn't have a lot of hard data
to go on) but I do think we should have a little more confidence in
our judgement here.

As Steven said, there are a *lot* of people happy with Python 3. They
don't say much, precisely because they are happy - that's the point.
Let's not fall foul of the mistake of only listening to people who
complain.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to